My State of the Unions 2014 Wish List

I know most of these positions will be completely avoided by President Obama, never mind that they wouldn't have a chance of being implemented with the current Senate, even with a Republican POTUS.  But permit me to dream. Also notice that with most of these, I'm calling on the President to encourage action by the people, not to use the force of law.

Explain That the Federal Government Is Not the Answer to Every Challenge, Problem, or Choice - Rather, it is the Last Resort Answer to Very Few. That is what freedom and liberty are all about.  Challenge individuals, businesses, congregations, nonprofits, and local and state governments (where appropriate) to take action instead of relying on the federal government. The federal government is there to protect the union from foreign threats and to and resolve some disputes between states.

Tout the Successes of the War on Terror. Laud those military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who have uncovered and prevented terrorist plans and actions, pointing out that is has been over twelve years since terrorists have carried out a major attack in the U.S. Apologize for Benghazi and what happened in the wake of that terrorist attack.

Border Control Is a Matter of National Security. Explain that allow illegal aliens any advantage in gaining permanent legal status ahead of legal immigrants is a slap in the face to legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. Announce that, effective immediately, the National Guard will secure our borders to prevent terrorists, disease-carriers, and smugglers from entering the U.S. They will stay there until suitable barriers and checkpoints are constructed – however long that takes. We will NOT encourage further invasion by offering amnesty, health insurance, and other tax-funded benefits for citizens of other countries who illegally enter/stay in the U.S. Speed up the process for legal immigration for those who want to come to the U.S. legally to become citizens and can find sponsors who will ensure they will stay off of public assistance. As for illegal aliens currently living in the United States – do not offer amnesty; they can go through the same channels of those who are trying to immigrate legally. If the border is secure, this problem will eventually take care of itself because their children born here are citizens and the illegals can continue to function as they have until they die off, if they don't want to go the legal route. Any illegal alien who serves honorably in the U.S. armed forces should be granted citizenship. If a true shortage of labor occurs (meaning American unemployment is low and employers need more temporary labor), a true guest worker program can be developed.

Break the Street Gangs. Pledge federal agencies to assist state and local law enforcement "sweep and hold" gang-infested urban areas.

Encourage Responsible Gun Ownership. As it is the duty of every able person to stand up to evil & crime in protection of the innocent, responsible gun ownership, training, and practice should be encouaged, and state and local laws should allow for this. Apologize for Fast & Furious.

Declare the Growing National Debt Unacceptable. Explain that it is a basic function of the federal government to adopt a budget, and that it is unsustainable and immoral to accumulate increasing debt, thereby burdening future generations. The government should not encourage further dependency on government.

Don't be Santa Claus. NO BAILOUTS FOR FAILED (= Democrat) CITIES! Don't propose new federal programs and expansions of existing federal social programs. Enough already. There are 50 states in the union and a few territories that are supposed to be handling their own matters – that is, the matters that are not supposed to be left up to "the people".

Stop Using the Tax Code For Social Engineering. Tell the Congress that instead of taking the carrots (taxes) from the people and then dangling some of them back in front of the people, that the people should keep their carrots in the first place and do with them what they will. Call for tax simplification and a move away from income/payroll taxes. If someone pays taxes, everyone should pay taxes.

Individuals Should Plan for the Future. Talk about the numerous options individuals and families have for saving for the future. Encourage them to save and invest for the future and not rely on the federal government to take care of them in their senior years. Point out that a reduction in federal spending will allow people to keep more of their own money to aid in saving for retirement.

Explain that Planning for Your Health Care is Part of Planning for the Future. Call for more freedom, competition, and private decision-making in health care. "Reform"  Obamacare.

Equal Access to Free Markets. Explain some of the major benefits of free markets, and that the best thing the federal government can do to foster a good business climate that provides jobs is to provide protection from interstate crime and foreign terrorists, and to be involved as little as possibly in voluntary employment and business transactions, not picking winners or losers in business, subsidizing some and restricting upstarts while protecing established businesses.

Property Rights and Personal Freedom. Most Americans understand that people should be considered as individuals and based on their behavior and abilities, not as members of a non-ideological group (ethnicity, etc.). Therefore, the federal government should no longer be involved in preventing people from renting, selling - or not - to whomever they choose for whatever reason, and should no longer be involved with who an employer hires and fires and why. Airlines, for example, should not be forced to carry anyone who makes the majority of their employees and passengers uncomfortable. It is clear that people can succeed in the USA regardless of skin color, sex, or sexual orientation, and focusing on slights, imagined or real, based on these personal characteristics, is fostering hostility and division and self-defeating thinking, doing more harm than good.

Encourage private innovation and solutions to reducing reliance on terrorist oil.

Education Is a Private Responsibility. Given the state of American public education since the Carter administration, call for the dismantling of federal involvement in education.

Strong Marital Unions Are Good For the Union. It brings together both sexes to raise the next generation of citizens. Men and women are different, and unifying them in the marital union forms a strong, inclusive building block for society, benefiting the individuals and society. Call on the Federal government to help by continuing to affirm, as Presidents Clinton and Bush did, that marriage unites a man and a woman, and pledge that the federal government will not force states to recognize counterfeit marriages. Encourage people to voluntarily take marriage seriously, thinking for the long term, getting good pre-marital counseling - and counseling during marriage as necessary. Encourage individuals, families, congregations, businesses, and the media to respect and value marriage, and support marriages instead of undermining them. Encourage individuals to save sex and childrearing for marriage, because doing so is good for them and good for the country.

Encourage Proven Conservation Techniques. Quote the scientists and activists who, in the 1970s, warned that we were heading for a new ice age, and quote those who said that by 2000, the rainforests and the oceans would be destroyed. Go on to say that we must not hastily and uncritically accept alarmist warnings and use federal government force to impose destructive restrictions on the people and business that may not result in significant environmental benefit.

Civility. Call on partisans to vigorously debate the issues, but refrain from threats of violence and character assassination, as they renew their vow to defend the Constitution.

Remembering Reverend King

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Reverend who constantly appealed to Christian principles in calling for this nation to follow Christ in treating every person as a worthwhile human being, regardless of skin color. He did a lot of good for this country.

May character matter more than skin color, and racists repent.

Time For Education to Evolve

Maybe you've heard of a recent poll about how a significant percentage of the American population "rejects evolution". I'm wary of polls, especially in the matter of origins, because the same words mean different things to different people. Anyway, it reminded of this piece I wrote many years back:

= = = = =

Every once in a while, the elites in the scientific circles give a "reminder" to the elites in the academic circles, and the drive-by media barely touches on the story. The portrayal of the story comes across as simply something along the lines of "Don't teach religion in science classes" and that "Evolution is true, and anything that sounds a little different is bogus."

This is happening again right now.

The problem is that the news media stories are too short to fully describe the situation and to define terms. This latest round referred to a report that seemingly stressed how we need to educate students in a way that will allow them to effectively fight mutating diseases, and that's why we have to present a unified philosophical naturalism in science curriculum in order to do that.

When the term "evolution" is used, it needs to be defined.  Are we talking microevolution?  Are we talking macroevolution?  Are we talking philosophical naturalism, which is a philosophy?  We we taking about homo sapiens emerging from  less advanced hominids?  Are we talking about living organisms arising from nonliving materials?

When using the term "creationism", do they mean young-earth Biblical creationism?  Do they mean the idea that something outside the universe could have been responsible for some things within the universe - Biblical God or not?  Defining "intelligent design" as synonymous with Biblical creationism does a disservice to students. While Biblical creation could be considered a form of intelligent design, not all intelligent design constructs fall within a straightforward interpretation of Biblical descriptions of origins.

The term "intelligent design" should not be banned from serious consideration in public schools.  We engage in intelligent design all of the time these days, such as with genetic engineering. Nor should the reality of "irreducible complexity" be ignored. While presenting macroevolution as true, the schools should at least boldly own the fact that "since" it is true, irreducibly complex organisms and systems must have therefore evolved via punctuated equilibrium, and that this phenomenon happened many, many times. All the interconnected parts must have emerged fully developed (or at least developed enough to provide a beneficial function) in an instant. So what if that would make philosophical naturalism seemed far-fetched? These are science classes, not philosophy classes, and we need to be true to the empirical evidence, right? Finally, both the major disputes between various evolutionary hypotheses and the serious unanswered questions about some or all of these constructs should also be presented.  After all, aren't we trying to inspire the students to move science forward?

I recall biology and life science curriculum up through high school to be mostly about the present-day functions of organisms and organs, life cycles, reproduction, and so forth. I hardly recall any teachings about mutating diseases. That belongs in higher education, it would seem. However, the reality of mutating diseases is in no way contradictory to supernaturalism, creationism, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity. In fact, mutating diseases fall right in line with many of their constructs. So, in theory, it would be entirely possible for a student to graduate from higher studies a creationist and still be effective at fighting mutating diseases.

So really, the latest hubbub seems to be pointless to me. And since I believe in separation of state and school, we really shouldn't need to spend so much time debating what should be taught in the schools.  Send your own children to the schools you think best. Keep your hands off of my children.

The Moral High Ground

It is immoral and counterproductive for the government to take money by force from one person or group of people and give it another unless the recipient is performing a Constitutionally assigned function or the function is otherwise a Constitutional mandate. - Personal Declaration of The Playful Walrus

Leftists want everyone to believe that people like me want poor people to die painful deaths in the streets, because people like me oppose unconstitutionally expanding federal government powers, higher income and capital gains tax rates, and paying for new programs with either increased debt or printing more money (which devalues the dollar).

Charity can't do it all, our Leftists friends say. But the fact is, this side of eternity, nobody can do it all.

Private, voluntary efforts could certainly do a lot more if the government eased up on micromanaging and let people keep more of their own earnings. With just about anything, private, voluntary efforts are more efficient than federal government. This is why the Constitution gives the federal government limited powers, and tells the federal government what it can do, not only what it can't do. Want a huge new federal program to fight "poverty", despite the spectacular failure of those that came before? Pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution isn't there just to make sure you can pee all over The Bible and call it art.

Our Leftist friends what to confiscate, with guns draw if it comes to that, that for which people have worked, and give it to people who choose not to work, or to make unwise decisions about finances. That is immoral.

I want to help the needy. That is why I give to voluntary efforts. More of my Leftist friends could do the same if they worked harder and were better with what they earned. Leftist Billionaires can already give their money away, to charity or the U.S. Treasury, if they want to.

With Ambassadors Like These...

Do you consider yourself a Christian? A follower of Christ? Do you believe the Bible to have Divine inspiration? If so, then you should know that we are called to ambassadors for Him. With that in mind, consider the following comment left by Anonymous after my entry responding to a popular perception of Evangelical Christians...

(Anyone who follows the true Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is born-again and a Christian, so the terms are redundant.)

In your eyes. As usual, the evangelical think they are the saved ones, they are the true Christians, they are the ones who have the 'real' word of God. Everyone else is hell bound. My father's family was pentecostal evangelical, my mother's family was Mormon. The Mormon family NEVER ONCE put down my evangelical family. My Mormon family NEVER ONCE made me feel less than, unholy, going to some hell, and all the other crap the evangelicals did EVERY time I saw them. Yes, every time we got around the pentecostals they berated my Mormon family, told us they, the Mormons were hell bound, itchy ears, etc. The Bible says by their fruits you shall know them. If that's the case the Mormons are going to heaven and will be near to God and the pentecostals will burn in that hell that they LOVE sending others to who do not think like them. My Mormon family members had more love in one little finger than all the pentecostals put together. My parents didn't take us children to church, and when we went to see the pentecostals we were treated with quiet contempt and they didn't like us around our cousins. When we visited the Mormons we were loved, cherished and made to feel so very welcome. Never once did the Mormons make us feel less than. To this day I avoid the pentecostals for their hatred and judgmental attitude that stinks to high heaven. Oh, I forgot, don't touch my anointed. THAT is what the pentecostals will see when they read this. They are so stuck on themselves they truly think they are the ones in line with God. I spent years as an adult in the evangelical churches and it was the grace of God that DELIVERED me from ALL OF THAT and I will never sit foot in one of those churches again. Ever. I would rather burn in the hell they send us all to then go near them again. And, of course, they are saying, then so be it, hell is where you will go. Idiots. 

Thank you, Anonymous, for your comment. I think it is a very important one, expressing feelings that have been felt by many people.

I'm going to assume your perceptions and memories are accurate. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I apologize for the treatment you received by people misrepresenting Christ.

I stand by my statement: Anyone who follows the true Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is born-again and a Christian.

Priorities

I wonder how many members of PETA support a legally-protected "right" to rip apart innocent human beings in abortion mills? I can't take anyone seriously who cares more about injuries and quality-of-life for orcas and elephants than protecting innocent human beings who are not posing a serious threat to anyone else from being slaughtered by the thousands, legally, every day.

I have priorities.

End elective abortions, then come back to me with your pleas to let the orcas and elephants deal with natural disasters on their own, without vet care.

A Stinking Cup of Joe

Fascism thrives on propaganda, and there's no shortage of propagandists for homofascism. Most people who engage in homosexuality are not fascists, but plenty of homosexuality advocates behave like fascists.

Notice that for many years, homosexuality advocates touted the importance of "tolerance". They've largely stopped doing that, because now they they've gained so much power, they don't plan on tolerating anyone who does not publicly cheer private homosexual behaviors. What tolerance really means is allowing for disagreement. You don't tolerate things you like or agree with. You tolerate things you disagree with or don't like instead of trying to force eradication of those things. The way homosexuality advocates used the word was quite different - they used to mean liking, promoting, or celebrating homosexual behavior. They portrayed any disagreement with homosexual behavior or any conviction that homosexual behavior was qualitatively different than heterosexual behavior in any way other than superior as being akin to murdering people.

One popular and acclaimed homosexuality propagandist is this Dog My Joe! character. I want to point out exactly how he operates. Quite often, he'll use unflattering images of his targets along with the twisted text, and use disparaging, childish nicknames as well. He headlined an entry at his blog today as such:

Tony Perkins: Gays Should Not Be On TV

Now, is that really what Tony Perkins said? As you'll see, it is not. Truth doesn't seem to be important to Joe, however.

He ran this quote by Perkins:

"When Gallup asked people to guess how many Americans were homosexual, most said 25%. Turns out, they were about 22% off. And while gays and lesbians make up about 3.4% of the population, they seem to get 100% of the consideration when producers write and cast new television shows. The debate over same-sex 'marriage' has been perfectly scripted by Hollywood. Television shows are full of lovable gay characters, whose dangerous lifestyle is just another funny footnote. Unfortunately for America, those make-believe people are having a real-life impact. It's no accident that almost 20% of Americans credit television with changing their minds on same-sex 'marriage.' It's time for families to let networks know that what they gain by being pro-homosexual doesn't compare with what they'll lose. And that's viewers."

Where did Perkins say that gays should not be on TV? He didn't. Perkin accurately describes the reality of television these days. By the data presented by established, respected mainstreamed homosexuality advocacy organizations, homosexuality is overrepresented on television, and portrayals of homosexual behavior or people who identify as homosexual are overwhelmingly sympathetic, positive, and present Leftism and marriage neutering advocacy as the expected priorities of such people. You'd never know from watching television that there are homosexual people with principled opposition to the neutering of marriage, or at least doing so by judicial activism (Joe, to his credit, does run quotes by homosexual people who oppose marriage neutering). You'd never know that homosexuality correlates to higher rates of domestic violence, substance abuse, STDs (at least with males), or mental illness.

You'd also never know what many homosexual people have noted, that general fascism and homosexuality have had a symbiotic relationship. So none of this is merely a coincidence. Homofascists are part of a movement that pushes to sexualize children as early as possible, and part of the Leftist tendency to make everything political. Note I did not say "homosexuals are pedophiles". Of course, some are, just like some heterosexuals are pedophiles. I'm talking about an activist movement. Homofascists take statements by individuals, often made in response to questions by proxies of homofascists if not homofascists themselves, that extol the ideal of uniting a bride and groom (marriage), or saving sex for marriage, or modesty, or decorum, as unacceptable utterances making that person and their business, employer, enterprise, livelihood the targeted or relentless attacks.

Joe attributes the quote this way:

- Hate group leader Tony Perkins, via email.

"Hate group"? Where has Perkins or his organization ever promoted hated? Ah, but there's a Leftist victicrat group that has labeled them as such. You see how that words? A Leftist group pronounces those who disagree with them as haters. Other Leftists run with name-calling, as if the Leftist group's name-calling makes it true.

Here are the tags Joe attached to this entry (remember, it is his language, not mine):

assholery, bigotry, Christianists, crackpots, FRC, hate groups, religion, television, Tony Perkins

Fascists like to portray opponents as extremists or insane. They also like to portray anyone complaining about their tactics as whiners.

What Neutering Marriage Did to Massachusetts

It's the state with the longest time of having marriage licenses neutered.

Getting Hairy in Hendersonville

Todd Starnes has a column at Townhall about an apparently lack of separation of mosque and state:

A Tennessee high school has decided to revise its field trip policy after a group of freshmen were taken to an Islamic mosque where they were given copies of the Koran and while a student who opted out of the trip was given a worksheet that alleged Muslims treated their conquered people better than the United States treated minorities.

The students were in an honors world studies class at Hendersonville High School and the field trips to the mosque as well as a Hindu temple were part of a three-week course on world religions.

But some parents objected to the trips and wondered why the school would tour a mosque but not a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue.

Because there is a war against Judeo-Christian values.

During their visit to the Hindu temple, students engaged in meditation.

Prayer in school?

Taxpayer-funded schools run by "secular" government might have made sense back on the day when we had more homogenous, isolated communities and we didn't have the networked, interactive communications systems we have now. It is a different world now, and instead of the federal government taking a larger and larger role in education, we need saparation of state and school. This is just one of many reasons why.

I'm an evangelical Christian. I have no problem with the idea of students visiting a mosque and getting a Koran. EXCEPT, we KNOW the ACLU and the like would freak out of the students were taken to a Christian church and given Bibles. But quibbling about these things is like arguing about the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. Take your children out of the government schools, and vote against funding them.

When A Murderer, Rapist, or Molester Commits Suicide

So Ariel Castro, who kidnapped and held three young women for many years, raping, beating, and otherwise terrorizing them, killed himself.


Ideally, he would have:

• realized the enormity of his evils
• accepted blame
• repented
• thrown himself on the mercy of the Lord
• begged forgiveness from Jesus, the victims, their families, the greater Cleveland area, and the State of Ohio
• spent the rest of his days doing everything he could to "repay" his victims & helping law enforcement figure out how to prevent crimes like his and find/rescue victims sooner.

But... killing himself was the second best outcome.

I know there are people who think we should not be anything but saddened that he killed himself, but those people have screwed up priorities and a deficient grasp of reality.

I generally oppose suicide, but for someone who murders, rapes, or attacks children, it is better that they kill themselves if the alternative is more crime on their part or being cared for by taxpayers

A Do-Nothing Congress?

A Pew poll said that this Congress is one of the "least productive" in history. You may have heard the GOP, which has the majority in the House of Representatives, referred to as the "party of 'no'."

Ideally, Congress should reduce spending, reform the federal taxation system, roll back government intrusion into our lives, simplify federal law while removing contradictions, and keep a check on the Executive & Judicial branches.

If we can't get that, I'd rather they "do nothing" than make things even worse.

The role of Congress is spelled out in the Constitution. They should do no more than what they are assigned in that document.

I Am a Sinner

I invoke the Bible, moral standards, etc. in some of my writing. I often describe ideals, or the way things should be.  Never do I mean to imply that I haven't messed up big time at different times in my life. The Bible calls followers of Christ to the holiness of God.

The thing is - nobody but Jesus has maintained that level of holiness as a human being. I sin.

Is the solution to reject moral standards, and call whatever I do right, and even fight to change laws that discourage or punish things I do that are wrong?

No.

The solution was provided by Jesus - living the perfect life and dying on the cross for my sins. Through Him, I am forgiven, and I can turn to Him whenever I go astray… tell Him I’m sorry, and ask for His help to get me back on track and to keep me from straying again.

So when I blog about some decline or deficit in society, I’m not excluding myself from that. I do screw up.  But I will do my best not to allow that to prevent me from calling for right and denouncing what is wrong.

Do I think everything that is wrong should be illegal? No way. On the flip side, though, I am reluctant to agree that people have a right that should be protected by law to do what is wrong.

Would I like to see everyone follow Jesus? Yes. But using government force to attempt to bring that about is not an option. Forced Christianity is an oxymoron. Nor do I think that people should be punished by the government for not being Christian. A truly Christian nation will protect the freedom of religion that is expressed in our First Amendment. So long as your religion does not promote actions that violate the rights of others, you should be free to practice it.

If you know you are a sinner and aren't assured of your standing before God, I invite you to read through a modern translation of the Bible, such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or ESV. The Gospels, Romans, Hebrews are good books to start. I can't offer any better advice than to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He's defeated sin and death, and will transform your life. I still sin, which is why I titled this post "I Am a Sinner." But He has paid for my sins. All to Him I owe. I am His servant, and I can't think of a better Master to follow.

Does the Christian Left Bear False Witness?

The Christian Left, eh?

Oh, yes, how could I have missed it all of these years?!?

The Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ According to St. Karl, Chapter 5 Verse 1:

And Jesus said, "Go convince the Romans to take a percentage, whether 15 or 35 percent, from the more wealthy half of the people, from the faithful and unfaithful alike, and have the Romans keep a portion for themselves, then have them distribute the rest to other people for their foor purchases, both those who honor their bodies and those who abuse their bodies alike, those who have saved and those who have not, those who have worked and those who have chosen not to." - (NLV - New Leftist Version)

Hey, doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness? Of course, that is assuming the "Christian Left" actually cares what the Bible says.

There are no children starving in the United States of America as a result of Congress refusing to raise taxes on "the rich", who are being taxed plenty.

The fact is, most of the "poor" children in this union are fat. Plenty are obese.

If there are any starving children here, it is entirely because their parents or guardians are neglectful. That is not the responsibility of Congress. We have various taxpayer programs already, including school meals (breakfast in addition to lunch) and many private charities that provide food.

It is not Congress' responsibility, either Constitutionally or morally, to make sure every kid is getting fed (and the kids are getting fed.)  But Jesus did tell His followers to care for the poor directly. He didn't tell them to go strip other people of their money.

The Christian Left is spending spending money on all sorts of things, like getting this image out, that they could be giving to starving children. I happen to know that the person who reposted this picture for me to see spends a lot of money on booze and entertainment. Every dollar they have spent on those things, and the computer, etc. they use could have gone to feeding a starving kid.

When "the rich" can invest and donate their money, rather than sending it down the federal government drain, they help more of the poor eat well, and rise up from being poor so that they, in turn, can help others.

Let People Break Laws Because: Lawbreakers

So much for hiding in the shadows. People who are breaking laws by coming or staying here illegally are again demanding we change how we do things to accommodate them. Look, pal, I welcome legal immigrants with open arms and a big smile and congratulations, but I still expect them to adapt to the Union, not have the USA adapt to them. We sure as heck shouldn't change a darn thing to make life any easier for someone who didn't follow the rules to begin with.

Kate Linthicum has the article at the Pink Transgendered Lady, which only allows you so many clicks per months before they want $. So keep that in mind if you are thinking about clicking through.

This is how the article is headlined:

Immigrants Rights Groups Urge Changes in Car Impound Policies
Activists persuaded the LAPD to amend its policy on unlicensed drivers, and the number of cars impounded last year fell 39%. They hope the Sheriff's Department and other police agencies follow suit.

An immigrant is someone who comes here and stays here legally. A foreigner who is here illegally is an illegal alien. Calling these people "Immigrants Rights Groups" is dishonest.

A 2011 state law requires police at drunk-driving checkpoints to give unlicensed drivers the chance to call someone with a license to take the car before it is towed.

They dropped the provision where the police were also required to offer them taxpayer-funded sex change operations.

But that law does not apply to routine traffic stops, and activists complain that unlicensed drivers across the county are losing their cars after being pulled over for minor infractions, such as making a wrong turn or driving without a seat belt. In many cases, the cars are impounded for 30 days at a fee of more than $1,000.

That's because they aren't supposed to be driving in the first place. What is the point of having a license if it doesn't allow you to do anything that someone without the license can do?

Activists say impound policies unfairly target immigrants here illegally, who cannot obtain licenses in California.

Yeah, you know those bank robbery laws unfairly target people who want money that isn't theirs.

At a news conference Wednesday held by a group called the Free Our Cars Coalition, Mexican immigrant Alma Castaneda said she and her husband have had their cars impounded five times for unlicensed driving. 

By "immigrant" the paper probably means illegal alien. In what other country would someone stand up at a press conference and admit to breaking federal law, and then complain that they were caught breaking state law five times?

That is how [whiny illegal aliens] persuaded the Los Angeles Police Department to make major changes to its impound policy, said Zach Hoover, a Baptist minister who leads an alliance of religious and community groups called LA Voice.

I won't hold my breath for the paper to run an editorial criticizing Hoover for trying to put religion into the law.

The new rules drew lawsuits from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, and from a national group called Judicial Watch that said the policy is unfair to taxpayers. California State Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris issued an opinion that the LAPD's impound policies were legal.

What does the law matter to Harris? She encourages lawbreaking.

If it is so difficult to live here as an illegal alien, then tough. I understand why people prefer the USA, especially over Mexico. However, they're going to have the deal with our laws, at least until they get as much political clout as marriage neutering advocates, who can simply ignore laws. We need to protect everyone, not just make things easier for illegal aliens.

HRC on ENDA

The [Homosexualilty Advocacy] Campaign, which calls itself the Human Rights Campaign, which doesn't support rights for polygamous people (so much for equality), as been advertising on behalf of passing "ENDA", which could force employers to let people dress inappropriately on the job along with a bunch of other things.

Here's a statement they have been using:

There’s no state law protecting LGBT workers in 33 states! Sign our petition to Congress to pass ENDA!

That first sentence, of course, is FALSE. There are many laws protecting workers in every state, and LGBT people are not excluded from those laws. Taking their statement at face value, I could note that perhaps 50 (or all 57) states have no state law protecting heterosexual workers! What HRC is trying to do is further erode freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free enterprise, and property rights, by further intruding into the hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, and other decisions of employers.

They want people to get upset that there's no specific law in 33 states that prevents an employer from saying, "I don't want to hire you because you're a man who has sex with men" or "I don't want to hire you because you're a man who is dressed as a woman." However, there's no law against an employer saying :I don't want to hire you because you're heterosexual." That's right. There's also no law againt an employer saying "I don't want to hire you because you're ugly", "I don't want to hire you because you're an introvert", "I don't want to hire you because you like to watch Honey Boo Boo", or a million other things, but the HRC doesn't seem to care about any of that. They have a very narrow focus of wanting to force people who do not approve of homosexual behavior or crossdressing to hire people who do those things anyway, and create whole addition class of potential lawsuits, as in "The reason I didn't get promoted is because I'm bisexexual!" when perhaps the reason was poor performance.

I think employment decisions should be up to a mutual agreement between an employer and a potantial employee (or their chosen representatives), not anyone else.

Of course, the homosexuality and crossdressing advocates will try to liken this to civil rights laws meant to stop discrimination against people based on their skin color or ethnicity, but there's a difference because those things are more readily apparent and are not behaviors. There was also a history in this country of enslaving people, denying them basic human rights, and publicly torturing and lynching people with impunity in well-attended festive events based on their skin color. Finally, a lot of people think it is time to drop the laws about racist discrimination, too, rather than increasing restrictions on employers.

You know what protects LGBT workers? The same thing that protects heterosexual workers: making your employer's job easier in a way it wouldn't be if they didn't have anyone at all for that position or had to go through the trouble of finding someone else. Being a good employee is an employee's protection. If someone doesn't keep or doesn't promote an employee who should be kept or promoted, it is the employer who loses out the most, especially of that employee goes elsewhere.

Opportunity

I haven't been updating this blog much lately because I'm busy rioting, looting, and beating up people for no reason, whining about some imaginary racist conspiracy.

We're Freaks - We Want a Decent Education For Our Kids

Have you ever noticed that homeschoolers are portrayed as freaks for homeschooling?

Yeah, I'm a freak.  I'm a freak because my wife and I are homeschooling our kids.


I'm a freak because I think it is better for my children to be educated and supervised by an R.N. who is smart as a whip, loves them more than anything else in the world, and can immediately and effectively discipline them without red tape. We don't want them sitting in a room with a teacher who is a pervert, or burnt out, or powerless, overwhelmed and a captive to a union, or worse yet, believes all of the junk the union promotes and hasn't been fired because of the union. We don't want them sitting a room with a bunch of disruptive kids who have no parental supervision and were "raised" by hired help, such as a "day orphanage", or have chaotic home lives involving stepparents, stepsiblings, or a revolving door of their parents' lovers.

We want our kids to be "socially retarded", by denying them the opportunity to fornicate in a full classroom or at a school dance on the dance floor, or to learn the latest combination of derogatory terms, or the latest lies, excuses, and techniques kids are employing to subvert teacher and parental authority. We want  them to have a little more trouble contacting the drug dealers in the schools.


We don't want to fight over uniforms or no uniforms, or dress codes where our child can't wear a t-shirt reflecting his or her religious beliefs but is ineffective at keeping girls from dressing like "hos".


We don’t want to deal with endless appeals for money or employing my child as a shill to raise funds, even though we're already paying plenty in taxes to fund the school.


We don't think "one size fits all" or even very few sizes fits all. Frankly, my kids are smarter than most their age.


We don't want our kids to have to deal with bullies who are not removed from the school after proving themselves to be thugs. In the adult world, the bullies get fired from the workplace.


We don't want to deal with endless PTA and school board squabbles.


We don't want to fight over class placement.


We don't want to fight with administrators over testing methods, or the content or method of textbooks or curricula, including material that attacks our faith, asserts philosophical naturalism, promotes pagan or New Age concepts and practices, embraces environmental alarmism, twists history, bashes America and its founders, denies the positive Judeo-Christian influence in this nation's history, or denies the Bible's influence on government, law, and the arts.


We don't want to fight over which languages will be taught, or the emphasis, funding priorities, or other decisions applied to electives, sports, physical education, arts courses, etc.


We don't want to fight over the content of assemblies.


We don't want our kids to have to use substandard facilities, especially dirty restrooms.


We want our children to know that getting the right answer the right way and applying it to the right uses, and other accomplishments is the key to self-esteem, not touchy-feely motivational programs about how they're "okay" no matter how badly and often they screw things up when they should know better.


We want to be able to let our kid know when he or she gets a wrong answer – with a red marker even, and help them figure out how to get the right answer instead of telling them the wrong answer is okay.


We don't want to fight over the food offerings and quality at the school.


We don't want to fight over reading selections and whether or not they include enough works from obese disabled crossdressing lesbian Buddhist Marxists of color.


We don't want to fight over the nature and amount of homework.


We don't want to have to structure our lives around the school's schedule, or fight over extending the school year or school day. We want to spend time with our kids.


We don't want to fight over what to call vacations and activities clearly scheduled around Christian holidays, or struggle to allow our kids to express their celebration of those holidays.


We don't want our children prevented from citing, referencing, or mentioning the Bible or Jesus Christ in their schoolwork.



We don't want to fight over school prayer, or the even the school mascot.


We don't want our children being taught the bogus notion that disapproving of a behavior or disagreeing with an opinion makes someone intolerant or bigoted. We don't want them subjected to speech codes with which we disagree.


We don't want our grade-schooler accused of sexual harassment for hugging someone.


We don’t want someone else teaching our children in a way that normalizes fornication when we're raising them to value the sacredness of marital lovemaking.


We don't want school officials aiding and abetting statutory rape by taking our daughter to get an abortion without our knowledge.


We don't want our children being taught that homosexual sodomy is no different from heterosexual coitus, or that there is no difference between a couple of both sexes and a couple missing one of the sexes.



We don't want our children being taught that if they have some sort of emotional or psychological difficulty, that they must be homosexual or are really the opposite sex and should have body parts lopped off.


We don't want our children taught relativism, postmodernism, or multiculturalism, or otherwise subvert what we're teaching them.


We want to teach our children with an integrated, logical, consistent worldview, to judge people based on their actions as individuals, that it is good to have traditional values and to make moral judgments, that not all religions, customs, or cultures are the same or equivalent, that some actions AND ideas are evil or just plain stupid, and that feelings can change, can be managed, and don't necessitate action.


We know better what's best for our child than lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington D.C, who want to micromanage.  I see all of these battles over every aspect of public schooling as arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The government should get out of the education business, and I vote against using any more tax money (including bonds) for public schools.


I respect school teachers, I really do.  I had some great ones myself and I have family members who are or have been school teachers. Almost all of my formal education was in public schools. But times have changed too much, and especially in California, the public schools have far too many problems.


Plus, I know my kids will not get shot at home.

What We Mean When We Say 'The Homosexual Agenda'

As a limited government conservative, I would never want to use the force of government to stop consensual socializing, physical interaction, cohabitation, religious ceremonies, voluntary associations and business transactions, or free expression. I do think it is the role of various levels of government to cite, fine, and incarcerate one who physically harms someone else or steals or damages the property of someone else against their consent.

Therefore, I would never try to pry two (or three or more) men in bed together apart, to disrupt a "gay wedding" in a church, nor do I think it is excusable to assault someone just because they are gay, or spraypaint vulgarities on their home. I think we should all have the freedom to exercise our rights to life, liberty, and property, regardless of whether we are attracted to men, women, both, or neither.

Yes, I believe that homosexual behavior, like all sexual or sex-like behavior outside of marriage, is sinful (a license from a state does not make a brideless or groomless pairing marriage). I do not believe, however, that our laws should attempt to prevent the commission of all sins.

When someone like me refers to "the homosexual agenda" negatively, we're not talking about seeking to live as you choose in your own home, or protecting yourself from crimes.

What we are talking about are things like:

• Denigrating traditional gender roles. If the traditional masculine or feminine roles do not work for you as an individual or a couple (understandable, especially with two men or two women), that's fine, but the rest of society can still embrace traditional gender roles, and should be able to without being accused of animus towards homosexual people.


• Trying to punish thoughts with "hate crime" legislation.


• Instituting official public school clubs centered around expressing sexuality and the affirmation of homosexual behavior. I'm against public schools in general, but schools full of minors should focus on academics, athletics, and the arts, not to whom you have an attraction. If you really, really need to form a gay-straight "alliance", take Drama. Grades K-12 should not be forming official sex clubs, and make no mistake, it is about sex. Also, in California, the Leftists running the state now require textbooks to include and identify people as "LGBT" and call positive attention to their sexual attraction, behavior, or gender confusion.


• Trying to get our churches to abandon Scriptural teaching on sexuality and marriage.


• Telling someone, especially a child, with homosexual thoughts or feelings that they must identify and affirm themselves as homosexuals and engage in homosexual behavior, and that there are no alternatives. This may include trying to prevent anyone from offering assistance to modify behavior away from homosexual sodomy.


• New or increased government funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention, treatment, etc., especially at the expense of funding for other diseases not as easily preventable. I’m not convinced it is the federal government's place to spend any money on any disease, except in treating military personnel and federal prisoners.


• Trying to get us to believe it is okay for someone to dress inappropriately or undergo surgical mutilation and unnecessary hormone treatments in an attempt to appear to be the opposite sex, and that to accommodate such behavior, we should allow men and women (AND BOYS AND GIRLS!) to use the public restrooms of each other. (I don't lump "transgendered" with homosexual, but so many activists do.)


• Intolerance of anyone who does not affirm homosexual behavior. Labeling as a "hater" or "bigot" anyone who doesn't affirm homosexual behavior, and trying to silence such people or prevent them from publicly expressing their opinions.


• The notion that someone who engages in homosexual behavior should receive special or extra protection under the law, and shouldn't in any way be criticized.


• Neutering state marriage licensing, especially through judicial imposition. Preventing adoption agencies from preferring homes with bride+groom couples when placing children.


• Placing into law, curriculum, medical/counseling policies, church teachings, the media, and workplace training and policies that one must affirm:


• Homosexual behavior is healthy and morally neutral or positive.


• Homosexual attraction should be embraced and acted upon.


• There is no difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy, and no qualitative difference between a couple comprised  of both sexes and a couple comprised of one.

Since I believe in property rights, I do believe employers should be able to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. But, I believe employers, absent a contract that says otherwise, should be able to fire (or not hire) anyone for any or no reason, so it isn’t like I think someone should be able to be fired because they are gay. An employer should be able to fire someone because they are the employer.

I do not think there is right to two men to commit sodomy with each other. They have the freedom to, and as long as they are doing it in private I wouldn’t try to stop them. But I’m against having laws or court decisions that there is a right to such behavior in a way that government must, say, license "marriages" between two men.

I recognize that not all people who identify themselves as homosexual support this homosexual agenda. While some homosexual people make it the end-all, be-all of their existence and thus are "homosexuality advocates" or even "homofascists", I know that there are plenty of homosexual people who, like straight me, have higher priorities, such as Constitutionally limited government, national security, and national fiscal sustainability. They don't obsess over trying to get people like me to abandon our belief that homosexual behavior is wrong. And I don't obsess over trying to get them to renounce homosexuality.

Under limited government conservatism, we can use our right to free speech to try to persuade each other, but we should not use the force of government to try to silence each other, or to force "affirmation" from each other.

Declaration of Independence

Divorce Does Not Justify Marriage Neutering

People arguing for the neutering of marriage cite the high divorce rate as a reason why a brideless or groomless couple should be able to get state marriage licenses for their voluntary association, or perhaps why we, the people, don't have moral authority to set marriage licensing requirements. After all, if it is God's will that marriage last for life and we as a society aren't following God’s will in that respect*, how can we invoke God's will when it comes to insisting that marriage uniting the sexes?  They argue that if we want to protect marriage, we should ban divorce, or they claim they're going to push for such a ban themselves.

If you want to circulate a petition to place an initiative on the ballot that bans divorce, go ahead.  Nobody is stopping you. You can vote for it, too. Be my guest. If you donate money to back it, I won't boycott your business.

One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom. But in entertaining this appeal to the Bible or religious tradition, I still don't see that immorality in one thing precludes making a moral judgment at all. (If you fell down some stairs this morning, you should still try to avoid crashing your car into a wall.) If the political authority doesn't belong with the people, it belongs with nobody, as all authority of our branches of government is assigned to them by the consent of the people.  The answer is not to promote more immorality or fundamentally alter the nature of marriage. It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other.

Yes, divorce is a bad thing. Even if it gets someone away from a sociopath - and people should get away from sociopaths - it is bad in the sense that there never should have been a marriage in the first place, and the divorce is part of the larger mistake. Marriage, ideally, should be for life. But that there is divorce has no bearing on whether or not state marriage licensing should be neutered.  It is an entirely different issue. I can cut an orange in half. I can destroy it. It can be eaten away by fruit fly maggots.  There can be a wax likeness of an orange fraudulently passed off as a legitimate orange. None of that makes an orange rubber ball an orange, even though it is round and orange in color. We even revoke the state-issued driver's licenses of some drivers because they have been horrible drivers, but that doesn't obligate us to issue driver's licenses to bus riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, or anyone who can apply for a state identification card, even though driver's licenses are considered more desirable.

Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow.  A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.

The high divorce rate can be cited as evidence for a devaluation of marriage in our culture. But how would neutering marriage help that? To me, it seems, it would be kicking marriage while it is down.  Some may argue that "heterosexual couples haven't been doing such a great job with marriage, so why not let same-sex couples have a shot at it?" That may sound appealing to some at first, but it also does not make any sense, as bride-groom couples will still be able to get state licenses, and it is akin to saying "orange growers have been doing a lousy job, so let's throw rubber balls into the crate with the oranges."

Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that. There are ways of addressing that, but neutering marriage isn't one of them. That there are a lot of divorces in no way means we should forfeit our votes to judges or activists.


*From a religious standpoint, (which, we are constantly reminded, the state can't consider), any church that takes the Bible seriously should not be performing marriage ceremonies or recognizing the marriage of anyone who divorced a previous spouse without Biblical grounds.  (Biblical grounds boil down to abandonment – actual geographical or sexual abandonment or other forms, such as abuse of others or self or adultery.  If someone divorces you without just cause, that is abandonment.)

I do agree that divorce is detrimental to marriage.  To this end, I could see it as reasonable if a state decided it was going to change its laws so as to stop issuing marriage licenses to couples in which at least one of the individuals had previously filed for and received a divorce, say, two or more times.  Note - that means being the divorce initiator, not the spouse presented with the papers.  I could especially see it as a reasonable restriction if the state also allowed some other form of civil licensing for such couples.  Ultimately, however, no number of divorces changes the basic nature of marriage, or the state's interest in licensing it.